Regular contributor Deena Blumenfeld shares her recent experience with a “research” article that washed over social media outlets and was shared and discussed by many birth professionals. Deena explains how she fell in step with others and ended up being lead down the wrong path.
A recent All Things Considered story that aired as a part of NPR’s Beginnings series discussed concerns over elective labor inductions and the movement by some doctors to decrease this trend in our country’s maternity care system. From the news piece, Doctors to Pregnant Women: Wait at Least
Our friends at Childbirth Connection have another amazing-sounding webinar coming up next week: Reconsidering the Costs of Convenience: Implications of Elective Labor Induction.The webinar will explore successful strategies for reducing elective induction featuring Kathleen Rice Simpson, PhD,
Last August, I argued against ACOG’s current position on inducing labor with misoprostol, which is that misoprostol is safe “when used appropriately” (p. 387), by which ACOG means provided it is used in doses no greater than 50 micrograms in women with an unscarred uterus. In March, I started work
Ahh, the new ACOG induction guidelines, so much to dislike, so little time. Still, others are also commenting, so I will focus on debunking ACOG’s portrayal of misoprostol. ACOG STATEMENT: “There is . . . a large body of published reports supporting (misoprostol’s) safety and efficacy when used